Using a Choose-Your-Own- Adventure Type Platform to Augment Learning and Facilitate Student Engagement in Marketing Education

Jennifer Bechkoff, MBA, PhD

Purpose of the Study: Gamification is the instructor’s use of a game (e.g., role playing, word, adventure, trivia, puzzle, simulation, race, etc.) in the classroom to facilitate learning. Prior gamification research has yet to investigate the efficacy of using a choose-your-own-adventure style platform in the classroom. The purpose of this research is to explore the pedagogical value of that particular gamification method.

Method/Design and Sample: Two independent studies using quantitative and qualitative data taken from three samples of marketing students at a large California university investigate the academic effectiveness, perceived helpfulness, and perceived enjoyment of a choose-your-own-adventure type game in the classroom via the open- source program Twine.

Results: Results from Study 1 indicate marketing students take 23.8% less time while simultaneously scoring 10.2% higher on the module assessment when their lessons are gamified using Twine (vs. not gamified). Results from Study 2 suggest this particular gamification method also increases student engagement.

Value to Marketing Educators: Given the findings of these two studies, the previously unstudied choose-your- own-adventure gamification platform is a recommended teaching method to augment marketing education as it not only increases student performance, but also student engagement.

Keywords: Gamification; educational technology; instructional strategy; self-efficacy, student engagement.

Jennifer Bechkoff, MBA, PhD, Associate Professor of Marketing, Lucas College and Graduate School of Business, San Jose State University, 1 Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192. Tel: 408-924-3693, Email: [email protected].

ccording to DeLotell, Millam, and Reinhardt gamification methods. Some gamification methods may (2010), deep learning in an online environment suit one’s teaching style or subject matter better than A boils down to student engagement. They believe others, some methods may be easier to incorporate into there is no better place than the online classroom to the curriculum than others, and some instructors may drive student learning and create conditions to foster be more adept at coding and using programming deeper, more fulfilling learning. Gamifying learning languages than others. The correct gamification activities is a growing trend to keep students engaged method to use is a successful one that best fits the with the core curriculum. instructor, curriculum, and desired outcomes. The college-aged Millennial generation, born 1980- Unfortunately, creating a highly-engaging instructional 1995, is currently 21-36 years old game can be difficult, time consuming, and costly (Pricewaterhousecoopers, 2013). These students have (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015; Kapp, grown up with digital technologies and the Internet 2012). (Jones & Hosein, 2010). According to Montenery et al. The present research identifies a gamification (2013, p. 405), “[Millennials’] learning is nonlinear and method absent from current gamification literature. It irregular, characterized by rapid shifts between Internet identifies and employs a user-friendly, cost-free sites and various devices. These students multitask, program as context to deliver that method to better are accustomed to immediate, automatic feedback, and engage the current university student demographic. desire positive reinforcement.” Gamification provides a Through a series of two studies performed across three context to meet those requirements and increase online Consumer Behavior courses, the new student engagement (Brigham, 2015). gamification method is shown to increase marketing Currently, instructors gamifying curriculum in higher students’ assessment scores and decrease their education are early adopters, but the pedagogical assessment times. In addition, marketing students method is spreading (Toyama, 2015). As the trend perceive it to be helpful, fun, and engaging. toward gamification grows, instructors need examples and options of empirically tested, successful Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 13

GAMIFICATION platform Twine is successful as a curricular enhancement, both academically and motivationally. The term gamification was first coined by British This research was performed in a virtual classroom to computer programmer and designer Nick see whether students would not only enjoy it, but also Pelling in 2002. He defined it as, “applying game-like benefit from it. accelerated user interface design to make electronic transactions both enjoyable and fast” (Pelling, 2011). CHOOSE-YOUR-OWN-ADVENTURE STYLE Although gamification has arguably been around for decades, the term has only fairly recently been coined, Choose Your Own Adventure was a wildly popular book but the concept is advancing rapidly as a way to teach series published by Bantam Books in the 1980s. Over and motivate students in higher education. 250 million copies were published in 38 languages Gaming (tablet platform, smartphone/watch (Lodge, 2007). The choose-your-own-adventure style platform, PCs, webgames, and game consoles) is a of nonlinear storytelling is based on of that book series. massive industry. Global Games Market Report While contemplating novel ways to gamify a marketing projects worldwide gaming revenues to reach $107 course, the author recalled the Choose Your Own billion by 2017; in 2015, $22 billion was from the United Adventure series and sought to investigate this method. States alone (Sinclair, 2015). Gamification rewards our Academic literature on the nonlinear storytelling behavior (Kim, 2015); this makes it an excellent learning method for use in pedagogy is scant at best, though tool via operant conditioning. Many extant pedagogical there is at least one example of the method being studies on the topic found that undergraduate students gamified in practice. RMIT University Library in perceive gamification positively and are interested in its Melbourne, Australia developed a browser-based, use for learning (Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014; choose-your-own-adventure style game designed to Kuo & Chuang, 2016; Nevin et al., 2014). Banfield & orient students with their University library. It is Wilkerson (2014) found gamification increases both the described by Rowan Mangan, the Library Quest intrinsic and self-efficacy of undergraduate creator, as “the spoonful of sugar that helps the students in the classroom. Educational games allow for medicine go down” when it comes to learning how to trial and error, eliminating the negative pressures that navigate the school library. She also credits the game can interfere with students’ ability to learn (Cohen, with confidence building (i.e., self-efficacy) in the 2011). It is not meant to replace other types of learning students. Dr. Craig Anderson, the university librarian experiences, but rather augment them (Cain & Piascik, believes the program engages students at a deeper 2015). level. Although there is no empirical literature on Library Gamifying an entire course, however, has been Quest’s actual effectiveness, the game’s website shown to lead to decreased student motivation, contained a video with students commenting they found satisfaction, and empowerment as compared with a it “fun” and “easy to understand”. One student said it non-gamified course (Hanus & Fox, 2015). Frost, Matta, was engaging because it kept her wanting to continue and MacIvor (2015) recommend gamifying individual the game to find out “the town’s outcome,” part of the assignments in lieu of gamifying an entire course. A game’s storyline (Library Quest, 2016). longitudinal study by Hanus and Fox (2015) compared The choose-your-own-adventure method gives its a gamified course to a non-gamified course at four user autonomy and promotes active involvement. Since various points in time, and discovered decreasing Millennials are active learners (Conklin, 2012) and they motivation over time. Cognitive evaluation theory is are the current academic demographic in higher cited as the underlying reason for the result, positing education, this platform for gamification in the students felt controlled and constrained by the reward classroom warrants further investigation. aspect of the game (which in this case was earning a badge). Game rewards in the classroom should not be THEORETICAL DRIVERS authoritarian or controlling (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Stipek, 1996). Tangible rewards (e.g., money, There are many underlying theories as to why special privileges, or extra credit points) affect free- gamification is useful as a method of instruction in the choice behavior and are thus considered controlling, classroom. Operant conditioning, motivation theory, whereas verbal rewards (e.g., praise or performance self-efficacy theory, the novelty effect, and student feedback) enhance free choice. It is also noted engagement are a few of them. Each driver will be unexpected rewards used on occasion are beneficial, discussed, then its relationship to gameplay will be but should not be so frequent as students come to addressed. Four hypotheses theoretically supported by expect them (Deci et al., 1999). the literature are given. Gamification in the classroom has been extensively studied using video games (Fisher, Beedle, & Rouse, Operant Conditioning 2014), proprietary gaming software (Nevin et al., 2014), Operant conditioning is a method of learning whereby competitions (Leaning, 2015), point-based systems reinforcement (or punishment) is used to increase or (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015), word games (Schamroth & decrease a behavior. An association is then formed Walsh, 2014), etc., but never using a choose-your-own- between the behavior elicited and the consequences for adventure story-type platform. The purpose of this that behavior. B. F. Skinner demonstrated this concept research is to see whether gamification using the when he introduced a starved rat into a box that Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 14 contained a lever which would release food when competitive play due to a perceived higher chance of pressed; the rat soon associated pressing the lever with success, whereas a person low in self-efficacy is more the reward of food. Operant conditioning can explain likely to avoid game play for fear of failure (von Gillern, how games work, regardless of whether success in the 2016). Self-efficacy is better predicted by active game is tied to chance (e.g., slot machines) or skill (e.g., learning (participating in the game) versus educational games). For example, slot machine observational learning (watching someone else play the gamblers are operantly conditioned to continuously add game) (Bandura, 1997). It influences how one money to their slot machines due to intermittent approaches a task, how much effort is devoted to a financial rewards for reinforcement. Similarly, task, and how failure is interpreted (Lee, 2015). participants are operantly Self-efficacy is used as a tool to predict performance conditioned to continue on with the educational Q & A (Bandura, 1997; Hackett & Lent, 1992; Multon, Brown, due to intermittent rewards (such as a clue that leads to & Lent, 1991) and motivation (Schunk, 1995). Research solving a perplexing riddle) given when a question is on self-efficacy revealed its relation to both gameplay answered correctly. motivation (Klimmt, Hartmann, & Frey, 2007) and game enjoyment (Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006; Trepte & Motivation Reinecke, 2011). Gamification increases student motivation and Digital games have been shown to promote self- engagement (Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014). efficacy (Peng, 2008), and higher levels of self-efficacy Motivation is personal investment as determined by the lead to better academic performance (Hackett & Lent, initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of 1992; Multon, et al., 1991). Therefore, it is hypothesized action taken and effect exhibited (Maehr & Meyer, that, 1997). It is an essential condition for learning H1: Students in a gamified (vs. nongamified) course will (Maehr & Meyer, 1997) and it explains the level of effort have higher assessment scores on the assessment students give to particular learning activities (Brophy, quiz for the gamified content. 2013; Buckley & Doyle, 2016). Thus, a good educator works to increase the motivation levels of students. Novelty There are two categories of motivation, intrinsic and A novelty effect occurs when there is an initial boost extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation involves engaging in an in interest unrelated to how interesting the thing actually activity where there are no apparent rewards except is; this interest wanes as the newness of it fades. enjoyment of the activity itself; conversely, extrinsic Novelty is an important factor in learning (Tulving & motivation involves engaging in an activity for an Kroll, 1995). It enhances salience and attention (Foley, external reward (Deci, 1971). Intrinsic motivation results Jangraw, Peck, & Gottlieb, 2014), and novel in better learning outcomes than extrinsic motivation occurrences are better remembered (Green, 1956; von (Deci et al., 1999). An early study on motivation by Deci Restorff, 1933). An object found in an unexpected (i.e., (1971) found that using money for extrinsic rewards incongruent) place produces a novelty effect and any lowers intrinsic motivation, but that other extrinsic information associated with that object is remembered rewards such as verbal reinforcement and positive more easily; if that same object were found in an feedback increase intrinsic motivation levels. However, expected (i.e., congruent) place, recall is poorer (van research has shown that if students find the learning Kesteren, Ruiter, Fernandez, & Henson, 2012). activity boring, giving extrinsic rewards has absolutely Outcomes from gamifying educational elements may be no effect on student motivation (Deci et al., 1999). due to a novelty effect, as prior research shows student A gamer’s motivation to play should be the center of engagement can decrease over time (Koivisto & game design (Siemens, Smith, Fisher, Thyroff, Killian, Hamari, 2014). 2015). As previous research shows, performance Increasing recall ability will inherently decrease feedback or praise as a reward system for achievement student assessment duration. Faster test taking times is more effective than class points or an achievement offers students the benefits of less time pressure stress, badge (Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014; Werbach & more confidence in answer selection, and more time to Hunter, 2012). Hence, the reward system for the go back and double-check answers prior to assessment present research was performance feedback for both submission. correct and incorrect answers chosen (for intrinsic There is also extensive neuroscientific research motivation) and an intermittent clue to solve a riddle (for confirming novelty activates dopamine-recipient external motivation). structures (the reward circuitry) in our brains (Bunzeck, Dayan, Dolen, & Düzel (2010); Bunzeck, Guitart-Masip, Self-Efficacy Dolan, & Düzel (2011); Düzel, Bunzeck, Guitart-Masip, Self-efficacy is one’s belief in his or her own capacity to & Düzel, 2010; Wittmann, Bunzeck, Dolan, & Düzel, succeed in specific situations in order to accomplish a 2007) which regulate motivation (Salamone & Correa, task (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997; Schunk, 1995). It 2012). There exists a positive association between reflects a person’s interpretation, and thus confidence, dopamine and motivation. Novel occurrences activate in his or her abilities. This interpretation changes over the reward center of the brain resulting in increased time, either increasing or decreasing, and is an levels of motivation. important aspect of gameplay experiences. A person Taken together from the aforementioned novelty high in self-efficacy is more likely to engage in research, it is reasoned that including a choose-your- Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 15 own-adventure type game in an upper division core was the chosen software because it does not have a business course should have a novelty effect thereby steep learning curve and the program is open-source. enhancing student attention, motivation, and ultimately, After having surveyed other software possibilities (e.g., their recall ability of the topics covered in the game. This Quest, TADS, ADRIFT, etc.), Twine was found to be the increase in ability to recall should be reflected in easiest program to learn for a very busy professor; the assessment duration. Hence, it is hypothesized that coding system is fairly intuitive. Initially, more of a story H2: Students in a gamified (vs. nongamified) course will line was going to be used, such as “You are walking take less time to complete the course assessment. through the woods when you encounter…” and then Early novelty research shows people have better consumer behavior concepts would be woven in. The recall for things that are novel or atypical (Brewer & student could progress on the adventure as he or she Treyens, 1981; Friedman, 1979). Later research chose the correct response to a character’s dilemma reveals memory recall relies on the hippocampus and that directly related to the material. Unfortunately, this novelty signals from the hippocampus promote proved to be quite difficult to create effectively in a way subsequent memory encoding (Lisman & Grace, 2005; that made sense. Hence, a question/answer format was Schomaker, van Bronkhorst, & Meeter, 2014). The adopted. Though not a true choose-your-own- present research uses a content-related novel game as adventure story, the format was choose-your-own- a learning tool. Students play the game prior to taking adventure-like, offering a systematic weaving through the assessment. Due to the novelty of the gamified the game that led to explanations for both correct and module, students should recall the information they incorrect responses which subsequently either led the learned in the game while taking the related gamer back to the question or forward to a mystery clue. assessment. Therefore, it is hypothesized that A mystery riddle was chosen as the reward to H3: Students will find the Twine game helpful for operantly condition students to want to continue on with recalling course content to perform well on the the game. An existing mystery riddle (vs. a newly assessment. created one) was chosen since it contained several ready-made clues that could be easily used as positive Student Engagement reinforcement. Mystery clues were given only randomly Student engagement is a metaconstruct that for both a theoretical reason and a practical reason: 1) encompasses multiple dimensions of involvement in Prior gamification research argues rewards should be learning. It has behavioral and emotional dimensions used occasionally (vs. continuously) so students do not (Finn, 1989; Finn & Voelkl, 1993; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch come to expect them (Deci et al., 1999), and 2) The 1994) as well as a cognitive dimension (Fredricks, Twine game contained more questions than there were Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, mystery clues. 2003; Wang, Willet, & Eccles, 2011). Student engagement has been linked to both student retention Twine (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008) and The platform used to create the choose-your-own- academic performance (Pascarella, Seifert, & Blaich, adventure paths was Twine, a free, open-source 2010; Thomas, 2012). program for creating interactive, non-linear stories, akin Hagel, Carr, and Devlin (2011) argue students must to Choose Your Own Adventure gamebooks. have control and autonomy in their learning to be Gamebooks are fictional adventure stories whereby genuinely engaged. Providing a gamified learning readers participate by making choices that affect the experience where students travel through the game at narrative. For example, “You walk along a passageway their own pace, making their own choices along the where you see a fork in the road. You can take the sunlit way, allows for this autonomy. Thus, the very nature of path on the left (p. 276) or follow the shady, tree-lined a choose-your-own-adventure type gamification path on the right (p. 28).” Twine was selected as the platform increases student engagement levels platform for this gamification method due to its relative (Brigham, 2015). ease of use with story construction, its ability to work A study examining the construct fun and its seamlessly with any learning management system relationship with student engagement in higher (requiring only a mere upload of an html file), as well as education found that fun content delivery methods by its free cost. the professor (e.g., storytelling) have a positive impact Twine allows the author to easily create these stories on student engagement (Tews, Jackson, Ramsay, & digitally. One passage is written (e.g., “You walk along Michel, 2015). It can be argued the choose-your-own- a passageway…”) and hyperlinks to two other adventure gamification method used in the present passages (“Left path” and “Right path”) are embedded research is a fun delivery method. Therefore, it is into the first passage. Then, hyperlinks to subsequent hypothesized that paths are written into those passages, and so on, until H4: Students will find the gamified learning activity fun. there is a mapped web of linked passages resembling a hierarchical chart. Twine makes it easy to identify Methods of Delivery broken links along the way to ensure the story stays The choose-your-own-adventure method was functional. Figure 1 contains a screenshot of the Twine chosen because it was absent from gamification story map used for this study. It is a view of the map literature and seemed like an excellent way to have during the creation stage; students do not see this. students review the course material. Twine, specifically, Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 16

Figure 1. Twine story map

The program (found here: http://twinery.org/) can be friendly Version 2. It was used to create content-related used both as a browser-based program and as a multiple choice quiz-like questions for students. Figure standalone desktop app. It does not require knowledge 2 contains a screenshot of one of the questions in the of a specific programming language, but instead utilizes Twine game as seen from the student’s view, and the visual structure of hypertext and supports CSS. The Figure 3 shows the coding that was required to create present research utilized Twine Version 1, but the that screen. program has since been updated to a more user-

Figure 2. Student’s view of a Twine question

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 17

Figure 3. Coding for the Twine question in Figure 2

Since Twine uses html, it is viewable on any browser; it. Any LMS will work, but the present research was hence, mobile play is possible via smartphone. conducted at a university that utilized Canvas. Information on Canvas for use in higher education is Canvas available from this link: The game for this research is delivered via Canvas, https://www.canvaslms.com/higher-education/. a cloud-native learning management system (LMS), in Once a story is created, there is an option to “Publish which the online class for this study was held. All to File” which turns the entire game into a single assigned textbook readings and additional content- downloadable html file. The instructor then uploads this related course material (videos, notes pages, URLs, file into the course files on Canvas and, subsequently, PowerPoint slides, podcasts, images, etc.) are adds it to the corresponding course module. When a uploaded into weekly modules created within Canvas; student clicks on the game link, he or she is taken students must read/watch/listen to all course content in directly to the story. Figure 4 is a screenshot of the very the weekly module prior to accessing the game. first screen of the Twine game as seen from a student’s Once the Twine story is created, it needs to be view within Canvas. The menu on the left is the Canvas connected to the course LMS so students can access navigation menu.

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 18

Figure 4. Student’s view of the first Twine screen as seen from within Canvas

STUDY 1 that particular answer choice wrong (thus refreshing students on the course material). Then he/she was The purpose of Study 1 is to test to see whether directed back, via the only link provided, to the original gamification affects students’ performance on question where another answer choice could be made. assessments and whether it affects students’ time to There were no penalties for selecting an incorrect complete the assessment. It is predicted using a answer, but a student could not advance forward choose-your-own-adventure method of gamification will through the game until the correct answer was chosen. increase student assessment performance (H1) and it When the correct answer was chosen, students will decrease student assessment duration (H2). were given a supporting explanation for their answer (again reaffirming the course material). This adds extra METHOD reinforcement to the material, and it informs the student exactly why the answer is correct (for those who may Participants included a total of 84 undergraduate have chosen the correct answer by happenstance). In marketing students (3 juniors and 81 seniors) enrolled both cases, multiple exposures to the course material in Consumer Behavior, an online upper division core occurred. After the answer was correctly chosen, marketing course, at a large California university. students sometimes received a mystery clue reward. Previous research suggests students in an upper- Then they were given the option to go back to the last division business course would yield better results than question they had or move forward to the next question. students in a lower-division course (Frost et al., 2015). A correct answer was required before being allowed to Two classes took part in this study during the same proceed to the next level. Appendix A contains semester. One week-long course module was randomly screenshots of actual Twine game play. It shows what selected from the semester-long course and gamified, it looks like when a student chooses an incorrect as recommended by prior research (Frost et al., 2015; answer, a correct answer, and when he/she is awarded Hanus & Fox, 2015). One Consumer Behavior class a mystery clue. Appendix B contains an example of one was randomly assigned the Twine game (treatment), level of the game and Appendix C shows the mystery and one was not (control). Professor, syllabus, riddle and reveals the mystery clues; the riddle was assessment, and course materials remained constant unrelated to the course material. between classes; the only change between the control After students in the gamified condition completed group and treatment group was the single gamified the Twine game, they were given access to the online, module. multiple choice quiz, located in Canvas; students in the Students who played the Twine game were given a control treatment were given access to the quiz after link that took them to choose-your-own-adventure type they finished the regular course module. One 10- questions comprised of topics related to the course question, 15-minute quiz was used as the assessment; material. Prior to starting the game, students were given the graded course quiz was identical in both conditions. a riddle. As they progressed through the game, if they It contained content-related questions about the same chose the correct answers to the questions, they were subject matter offered in the Twine game, but the sometimes awarded a mystery clue to the riddle. The graded quiz questions were not the same as those game started with a content-related question and a found in the game. For a comparison between a Twine selection of possible responses. question and a related quiz question, see Table 1 If the student answered incorrectly, the link took below. him/her to a mini-explanation of what specifically makes

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 19

Table 1. The comparison between a Twine question shown in the game and a related course quiz question given for a grade. Twine Question in Game Related Quiz Question in Canvas “Post-consumption, some of the people are unhappy “How is a complainer different from a with their purchase, They can either go back and noncomplainer?” complain, or choose not to complain and just not return or purchase the product again. Which is NOT a characteristic of a complainer? A. A complainer is unlikely to return. A. More likely to return to the company after the B. A complainer is not as valuable as a complaint is fixed noncomplainer to a firm. B. Is a valuable source of information to the C. A complainer is more likely to become a company satisfied customer.* C. Is more likely to post negative messages on D. A complainer is less likely to tell others social network sites* when the company responds poorly. E. All of the above.

size for the analysis of time (d = 1.04) is found to exceed RESULTS Cohen’s (1988) convention for a large effect (d = 0.80). Students in the gamified treatment (M = 8.69, SD = An independent samples t-test was conducted to 3.68) took less time to complete the course assessment compare the effects of choose-your-own-adventure than did students in the control group (M = 12.26, SD = gamification (i.e., game vs. no game) on assessment 3.18); H2 was supported. Students who played the time and assessment score for a 10-point, 15-minute game had a 23.8% decrease in assessment time. The quiz. Both sets of data pass assumptions of normality means and independent samples t-test results are and homogeneity of variance. presented in Table 2. As predicted, results indicate a significant difference To rule out academic achievement as a potential in assessment score, t(82) = -2.90, p < 0.01. The effect confounding variable, an independent samples t-test size for the analysis of quiz score (d = 0.64) is found to was performed on overall student grade at the end of be exceed Cohen’s (1988) convention for a medium the course. Results showed no statistical difference effect size (d = 0.50). Students in the gamified treatment between student course grades for each condition at (M = 8.89, SD = 1.35) performed better on the course semester’s end, t(82) = 0.415, p = n.s.. Perhaps if more assessment than did students in the control group (M = weekly modules had been gamified, there would’ve 7.87, SD = 1.85); H1 was supported. Students who been a significant difference between overall course played the game had a 10.2% increase in assessment grades; however, since only one of the fourteen course score. modules was gamified, this result rules out academic Also predicted, results reveal a significant difference achievement as a confounding variable. in assessment time, t(82) = 4.71, p < 0.001. The effect

Table 2. Quiz time and quiz score independent samples t-tests

Not Gamified Gamified µ δ n µ δ n t df % Change Quiz Time 12.26 3.18 39 8.69 3.68 45 4.71** 82 23.8% (in minutes) Decrease

Quiz Score (in 7.87 1.85 39 8.89 1.35 45 -2.90* 82 10.2% points) Increase Note. Higher means indicate longer assessment time and higher quiz score. * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION aided in the recall speed of the students, and an increase in student self-efficacy from the gameplay may Gamification using a choose-your-own-adventure have contributed to the increase in students’ format (via Twine) increases learning (as indicated by assessment scores. This study demonstrates the performance assessment scores) and memory recall effectiveness of this gamification method on student (as indicated by performance assessment times) in outcomes, but it offers no insight into students’ minds marketing students. Improving learning outcomes is the as to how they felt about the game. Were they more ultimate goal of gamification (Cheong, Filippou, & engaged? Did they enjoy the game? Did they find the Cheong, 2014). Although not tested specifically, current game helpful? Study 2 was designed to provide this literatures suggests the novelty of the game may have insight.

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 20

STUDY 2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS The purpose of Study 2 is to test to see whether students find the choose-your-own-adventure type Of the 42 participants involved in the study, only 37 gamification method helpful on the quiz (H3) and fun answered the open-ended question. All responses to (H4). It is predicted students will find the Twine game that question, “How do you feel about this choose-your- both helpful and enjoyable. own-adventure game and its relation to the course material and quiz?” were positive, except for one METHOD student who noted he/she was too focused on solving the riddle to pay attention to the material. The following semester, 45 undergraduate marketing Two methods of grounded theory were performed to students (8 juniors, 37 seniors) from another Consumer conceptualize the data. The first (open coding) was Behavior class played the same game, but this time performed to breakdown the data into its conceptual data were collected to find out how students felt about components, and the second (selective coding) was the game. The university, professor, syllabus, and performed to theorize the conceptual components into module modified were held constant with Study 1 for more inclusive concepts. Open coding is an interpretive greater internal validity. Three students failed to process whereby data are broken down analytically and complete the survey and thus were discarded from the compared for similarities and differences, then given analysis (n = 42). conceptual labels to group the categories that emerge After completing the game and taking the quiz, (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Selective coding leads to a students were asked to complete a mixed-method clearer perception of which conceptual labels integrate questionnaire. They were asked to rate on a Likert-type the entire analysis; it is a process performed at the end scale of 1-5 (1 = Not at all fun, 5 = Very fun) how fun of the study when the open categories are unified they found the choose-your-own-adventure game to be around the central phenomenon of the research (Corbin and how much they felt the game helped them on the & Strauss, 1990). Hence, selective coding was quiz (1 = Didn’t help at all, 5 = Helped a lot). The subsequently performed on the open codes to capture marketing students were also asked the open-ended the theoretical drivers of interest here. question “How do you feel about this choose-your-own- adventure game and its relation to the course material Open Coding and quiz?” During the initial coding phase of the responses, three major categories emerged: novelty, fun, and enhanced QUANTITATIVE RESULTS learning. Approximately 1/3 of the comments described the game as novel, 1/3 described the game as fun, and Helpfulness of the Game 2/3 said the game enhanced their learning. (Note: Some Overall, 78.57% of the students found the game to be comments were longer or compounded and fell into helpful (35.71% said it helped a lot and 42.86% said it more than one category.) The comments describing the was somewhat helpful). Only 16.67% responded game as novel centered on it being a refreshingly neutral and 4.76% found it not helpful. It is noteworthy different way of learning, either for the course or for that nobody indicated the game “Didn’t help at all”. µ = higher education in general. The comments describing 4.10. As predicted, students found the Twine game the game as fun generally discussed how enjoyable helpful on the assessment; H3 was supported. they found the activity to be. The majority of the comments described how the game enhanced learning. Enjoyment of the game Students found the game either inspired deeper Coincidentally, 78.57% also found the game to be fun thought, related directly to the course material, or was (47.62% said it was very fun and 30.95% said it was helpful in learning/retaining course content. Appendix E somewhat fun), while 16.67% responded neutral and contains a table of the major results of the open coding 4.76% found it not fun. It is noteworthy that nobody analysis, along with their corresponding properties, and found the game to be “Not at all fun”. µ = 4.21. As examples of participants’ words that fall into each major expected, students found the gamified learning activity category. enjoyable; H4 was supported. Selective Coding Overall grade comparison Selective coding involved ascribing the open codes In order to maximize the generalizability of Study 2 on (Novelty, Fun, and Enhanced Learning) into three main Study 1, a between-subjects ANOVA was performed on categories, each representing one of the theoretical students’ overall grade at the end of the course among drivers of gamification success: Novelty, motivation, all three classes (two from Study 1, and one from Study and student engagement were the resulting categories, 2). Results revealed no statistical difference among respectively. student course grades at semester’s end, f(2, 126) = Novelty. The novelty category stayed the same as 2.613, p = n.s. A table itemizing the similarities among 1/3 of the responses naturally fell into a novelty all three classes is located in Appendix D. category during open coding. This novelty effect was likely the driver for the next two categories, motivation and student engagement.

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 21

Motivation. Many of the comments indicated how quiz. Operant conditioning seemed to drive the student fun and enjoyable it was to play the choose-your-own- who said “The Q & A in this ‘game’ were very relevant adventure type game and solve a riddle. They felt a to the chapter's material and the quiz. But now I'm very sense of entertainment while learning. The fun aspect curious about the riddle answer!” and also for the of the game was the reward students received when student who said, “The game motivated me to get the they answered a question properly. They received a correct answer on each of the questions since I really single clue, which was a small piece of the puzzle to wanted the clues.” The clue reward was positive help solve a mystery riddle. Anticipating the next clue reinforcement for getting correct answers in the game, (i.e., reward) motivated students to continue through thus conditioning the students to continue on in with the game. anticipation of another clue in order to solve the answer Student Engagement. Consumer Behavior at the to the mystery riddle. university where the study took place is an upper- division core course requirement (vs. a chosen elective) GENERAL DISCUSSION in which many faculty find it difficult to hold student interest. These qualitative responses from participants Creating an online adventure story with multiple paths in the gamification treatment contained passion, is quite time consuming. It is not so much the hypertext interest, and optimism in the marketing course material coding that is an issue, but being creative enough to when using the game despite its challenging nature to come up with a course-related story line. It requires the some. This is evidence that the method increases instructor to extract important concepts from class, student engagement. come up with creative ways to offer correct and incorrect answers, and make sure the material is not the STUDY 2 DISCUSSION same as what is on the assessments. It must coincide with the assessments, but not mimic them. Study 2 was necessary to find out how students felt With that said, results indicate gamification using a about the Twine game. Of those who participated in the choose-your-own-adventure format, both increases game, 78.57% of the students found it to be both fun assessment results as well as decreases assessment and helpful on the quiz. Content analysis of the open- times. In addition, students revealed they really enjoy it ended question revealed students found the game and found themselves more engaged with the course novel, a break from the norm. Although it was an material. Playing an in-class game is a divergence from educational game, they were motivated to play due to traditional learning; the novelty alone increases student the enjoyment of the method. Some students found it motivation and engagement. Some students found it enhanced their learning by inspiring deep thought while helps them to focus on what is truly important in the others said it helped them to understand the material readings/lectures when studying, as the game was better. It is evident the Twine game increased students’ created to focus on course material that was deemed levels of engagement with the course material. most important. Although most open-ended responses fell into one End of the semester student evaluations (provided of the three categories, novelty, motivation, or student by the university) for all three classes were interesting. engagement, some individual comments seemed to It appears at semester end that students who had the reveal other underlying theoretical mechanisms that gamified lessons (for both Study 1 and Study 2) rated fueled their experiences. The student who stated, “I felt the professor higher than those in the control group on great because it helped me review the material covered “used assignments that enhanced learning” as well as for this week’s quiz” appeared to be driven by an “overall teaching effectiveness.” Even though a very increased self-efficacy. He or she “felt great” due to small portion of the semester-long class was gamified, having been exposed to the course material one it seemed to have a lasting effect on student additional time during the game; it seems his or her perceptions of the professor overall. Table 3 of the confidence level had risen when it came time to take the means for these student evaluations is located below.

Table 3. Means for End of Semester Student Evaluations of the Professor Overall Used Assignments Teaching that Enhanced Effectiveness Learning Gamified n the Class µ δ µ δ Study 1 Control Group 30 No 3.9 1.0 4.1 0.9 Study 1 Experimental Group 35 Yes 4.3 0.8 4.5 0.9 Study 2 35 Yes 4.5 0.6 4.6 0.6

Extrinsic rewards were offered throughout the game. answer). In line with research from Desi et al., (1999), Feedback was constant and the mystery clue rewards this form of reward system was successful. And since were intermittent (they were not given for every correct the vast majority of student participants found the game

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 22 to be fun (Study 2), prior research cautioning educators Nichols, 1996; Reeve, 2012); and self-efficacy is a that extrinsic rewards do not increase student construct of motivation (Lee, Hayes, Seitz, DiStefano, & motivation for boring tasks was a non-issue. This O’Connor, 2016). Motivation is what leads to an research lends support to the value of using an extrinsic increase in student engagement, a goal of any good reward system that offers continuous feedback and instructor. The present research serves to support intermittent tangible rewards. extant literature on the benefits of using gamification as Goffman’s (1967) research on student engagement a curricular enhancement in the virtual classroom, and discusses the Cartesian split between being and doing. it is the first to study the effects of a choose-your-own Although students may appear to be engaged when adventure platform on assessment duration and they are physically present during instruction, taking student grades. notes, or participating in a class activity, some may be In summary, this research identified a gamification just be going through the motions and instead thinking method absent from current gamification literature that about themselves, other school activities, and/or theoretically meets the needs of the current university external issues. Learning can only take place when student demographic (i.e., Millennials). A user-friendly, students are actively engaged with learning activities open-source program was identified and employed as (Yair, 2000). With respect to the underlying drivers of a tool to explore that method. Through a series of two gamification, operant conditioning keeps the student studies performed across three online Consumer engaged, motivation fueled by enjoyment increases Behavior courses, the new gamification method was effort, self-efficacy increases assessment performance, shown to increase marketing students’ assessment and novelty enhances attention and recall. scores and decrease their assessment times in a way Although the game play questions in this study that students found to be engaging. Twine was used pertain mainly to recall, this choose-your-own- successfully to deliver a choose-your-own-adventure adventure-like format could feasibly be used to include gamification method that now has empirical support for other types of questions that require a demonstration of increasing positive student outcomes. the understanding, application, analysis, and/or evaluation levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. It is important LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH to note, however, that the actual quiz questions in the assessment contained scenarios and other questions Although this research gives insight into the benefits of which required students to use the encoded facts they using gamification to augment learning and facilitate learned, not just recall them. When a student chose an student engagement in marketing education, it is only incorrect answer in the game, he/she was offered an cross-sectional. This study was performed on one explanation as to why that answer was incorrect. It can randomly selected, week-long course module from a be argued that, for those who did not know the correct consumer behavior course, not on the entire semester- answers initially, this led to a deeper understanding of long course. Prior research (Frost et al., 2015; Hanus & the concepts beyond rote memory. Fox, 2015) recommends gamifying individual The game question type, game type, and assignments instead of the whole class since the gamification method should all fit the instructor, the novelty of gamification wears off as the semester curriculum, and the desired outcomes for the course. If progresses; however, due to the success of this the game isn’t suitable for the learning situation, it can gamification method, it would be prudent to use it in end up being a confusing, frustrating, and/or more class modules. Future research should test how intimidating mess for both the students as well as the many week-long modules get positive results until instructor which could backfire with unintended results. reaching the point of diminishing returns. Also, age and In the case of this research, the instructor opted for a gender demographics were not collected; only data for choose-your-own-adventure type game (rather than a class standing was collected; future research might test full storyline) because it matched the instructor’s to see whether those demographics moderate the amount of available course prep time, concept results. knowledge, and coding experience. The gamification It is recommended future users of this method method/type also met the current [lack of] funds consider the relevancy of the riddle. The riddle used in available for new software, had the ability to deliver the this research is unrelated to Consumer Behavior; a game to online classes, and was an appropriate way to riddle more relevant to the course topic would be more deliver the multitude of new concepts/terminology appropriate and was actually offered as a suggestion in inherent in the learning outcomes of the undergraduate a few of the open-ended student responses from Study marketing course. 2. Interestingly, all of the theoretical drivers for Due to the asynchronous nature of the online academic gamification are related to motivation. course, the professor had no control over how long the Gamification increases student motivation and students played the game, whether they abandoned the engagement (Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014; Frost game and returned to it at a later time, nor how soon et al., 2015); operant conditioning is a behavioral view after having played the game they took the quiz. A of motivation (Snowman & Biehler, 1997); motivation future study would have more internal validity if these drives student engagement in academic activities variables were controlled for. Since this study was (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Lau & performed in the context of an online class, utilizing the Roeser, 2002; Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & innovation in a traditional, face-to-face classroom might Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 23 yield similar benefits, but with the added ability of retained/recalled information better due to increased controlling for the above-mentioned variables. student engagement, or whether it was because they Previous research has shown increasing students’ received multiple exposures to the course material or a time on task is one of the many reasons educators use lengthened time on task. games in the classroom (Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Finally, future research should measure the Cheng, 2009; Landers & Landers, 2014). The present theoretical drivers’ motivation, self-efficacy, novelty, research offered additional explanations of the course and student-engagement to provide empirical support content (thus reinforcing the material) regardless of for which construct(s) drive(s) student outcomes using whether or not students chose correct or incorrect this gamification method. answers during the game. Further research is needed to determine whether assessment scores increased and assessment time decreased because students Cain, J., & Piascik, P. (2015). Are serious games a good REFERENCES strategy for pharmacy education? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(4), 1-6. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. Cheong, C., Filippou, J., & Cheong, F. (2014). Towards T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games the gamification of learning: Investigating student on high school students’ engagement and learning perceptions of game elements. Journal of about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74- Information Systems Education, 25(3), 233-244. 85. Cohen, A. M. (2011). The gamification of education. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, The Futurist, 45(5), 16-17. A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the engagement: Validation of the student engagement behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), Erlbaum. 427–445. Conklin, T. A. (2012). Making it personal: The Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in importance of student experience in creating assessment: Do points affect test performance? autonomy – supportive classroom for Millennial Computers & Education, 83(1), 57-63. learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(4), Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying 499-538. theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory 84(2), 191-215. research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated NJ: Prentice-Hall. rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115. control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta- Banfield, J., & Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing student analytic review of experiments examining the effects intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy through of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. gamification pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. Education Research, 7(4), 291-298. DeLotell, P. J., Millam, L. A., & Reinhardt, M. M. (2010). Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of The use of deep learning strategies in online schemata in memory for places. Cognitive business courses to impact student retention. Psychology, 13(3), 207–230.Brophy, J. E. (2013). American Journal of Business Education, 3(12), 49- Motivating students to learn. New York, NY: 55. Routledge. Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. Brigham, T. J. (2015). An introduction to gamification: (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic Adding game elements for engagement. Medical mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, Reference Services Quarterly, 34(4), 471-480, 18(3), 75-88. Brophy, J. (2013). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). Düzel, E., Bunzeck, N., Guitart-Masip, M., Düzel, S. New York, NY: Routledge. (2010). Novelty-related motivation of anticipation Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and and exploration by dopamine (NOMAD): student motivation. Interactive Learning implications for healthy aging. Neuroscience & Environments, 24(6). 1162-1175. Biobehavioral Reviews, 34,660–669. Bunzeck, N., Dayan, P., Dolan, R. J., Düzel, E. (2010). Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of A common mechanism for adaptive scaling of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142. reward and novelty. Human Brain Mapping, 31, Finn, J. D., & Voelkl, K. E. (1993). School 1380–1394. characteristics related to student engagement. Bunzeck, N., Guitart-Masip, M., Dolan, R. J., Düzel, E. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 249–268. (2011). Contextual novelty modulates the neural Fisher, D. J., Beedle, J., & Rouse, S. E. (2014). dynamics of reward anticipation. Journal of Attitudes toward, and experiences with the Neuroscience, 31, 12816–12822. gamification of activities in the classroom. Journal for Research in Business Education, 56(1), 1-16. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 24

Foley, N. C., Jangraw, D. C., Peck, C., & Gottlieb, J. enjoyment. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), (2014). Novelty enhances visual salience 845–847. independently of reward in the parietal lobe. Journal Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic of Neuroscience, 34(23), 7947-7957. differences in perceived benefit from gamification. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179-188. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & concept, state of the evidence. Review of Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. student engagement on first-year college grades Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for 79(5), 540–563. gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Kuo, M., & Chuang, T. (2016). How gamification 108(3), 316–355. motivates visits and engagement for online Frost, R. D., Matta, V., & MacIvor, E. (2015). Assessing academic dissemination – An empirical study. the efficacy of incorporating game dynamics in a Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Part A), 16-27. learning management system. Journal of Landers, R.N. & Landers, A. (2014). An empirical test Information Systems Education, 26(1), 59-70. of the theory of gamified learning: The effect of Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Middlesex, leaderboards on time-on-task and academic England: Penguin Books. performance. Simulation & Gaming, 46(6), 769-785. Green, R.T. (1956). Surprise as a factor in the von Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and Restorff effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, motivational processes in high school students’ 52(5), 340-344. situational engagement and achievement in Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139-162. and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling gamification to enhance student engagement, Psychology (2nd ed. pp. 419–451). New York, NY: experience and achievement on a theory-based Wiley. course of an undergraduate media degree. Journal Hagel, P., Carr, R., & Devlin, M. (2011). of Media Practice, 16(2), 155-170. “Conceptualising and measuring student Lee, Y. (2015). Does digital game interactivity always engagement through the Australasian Survey of promote self-efficacy? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, Student Engagement (AUSSE): A Critique.” and Social Networking, 18(11), 2015. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Lee, C. S., Hayes, K. N., Seitz, J. C., DiStefano, R., & 37(4), 475–486. O'Connor, D. (2016). Examining motivational Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of structures that differentially predict engagement and gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study achievement in middle school science. International on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 192-215. satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Library Quest [Video file]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. 2016, from http://www.libraryquestgames.com/ Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Lisman, J. E. & Grace, A. A. (2005). The hippocampal- Towards an understanding of definitions and VTA loop: controlling the entry of information into measures of school engagement and related terms. long-term memory. Neuron, 46, 703–713. doi: California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7–28. 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.05.002 Jones, C., & Hosein, A. (2010). Profiling university Lodge, S. (2007, January 18). Chooseco embarks on students’ use of technology: Where is the net its own adventure. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved generation divide? International Journal of from https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by- Technology, Knowledge, & Society, 6(3), 43-58. topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/209- Kapp, K. (2012, June 8). Games, gamification, and the chooseco-embarks-on-its-own-adventure.html quest for learner engagement. Association for Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding Talent Development, Retrieved December 8, 2016 motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where from we are, and where we need to go. Educational https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD- Psychology Review, 9(4), 371–409. Archive/2012/06/Games-Gamification-and-the- Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, Quest-for-Learner-Engagement B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic Kim, B. (2015). The popularity of gamification in the work: The role of learning goals, future mobile and social era. Understanding Gamification. consequences, pleasing others, and perceived Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 5-9. ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Klimmt C., & Hartmann T. (2006) Effectance, self- 21(4), 388–422. efficacy, and the motivation to play video games. In Montenery, S. M., Walker, M., Sorensen, E., Vorderer P, Jennings B, eds. Playing video games: Thompson, R., Kirklin, D., White, R., & Ross, C. motives, responses, and consequences. Mahwah, (2013). Millennial generation student nurses’ NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 133–145. perceptions of the impact of multiple technologies on Klimmt C., Hartmann, T., & Frey A. (2007). Effectance learning. Nursing Education Perspectives (National and control as determinants of video game League for Nursing), 34(6), 405-409. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 25

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Sinclair, B. (2015, April 22). Gaming will hit $91.5 billion Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic this year – Newzoo. Retrieved May 5, 2016 from outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-04-22- Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38. gaming-will-hit-usd91-5-billion-this-year-newzoo Nevin, C., Westfall, A., Rodriguez, J. M., Dempsey, D. Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (1997). Psychology Applied M., Cherrington, A., Roy, B., Patel, M., & Willig, J. H. to Teaching, 8th ed., Houghton Mifflin, 399-402. (2014). Gamification as a tool for enhancing Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. graduate medical education. Postgraduate Medical Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Journal, 90(1070), 685-693. Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 85- Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2010). How 113. effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting Tews, M. J., Jackson, K., Ramsay, C., & Michel, J. W. important educational outcomes? Change: The (2015). Fun in the college classroom: Examining its Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(1), 16–22. nature and relationship with student engagement. Pelling, N. (2011, August 9). Funding startups (& other College Teaching, 63(1), 16-26. possibilities): The (short) prehistory of “gamification” Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and [Web log post]. Retrieved April 29, 2016 from belonging in higher education at a time of change: https://nanodome.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the- Final report from the what works? Student Retention short-prehistory-of-gamification/ and Success Programme. London: Paul Hamlyn Peng, W. (2008). The mediational role of identification Foundation, Higher Education Funding Council for in the relationship between experience mode and England, The Higher Education Academy and self-efficacy: Enactive role-playing versus passive Action on Access. observation. Cyber-Psychology & Behavior, 11(6), Toyama, K. (2015). The Looming Gamification of 649-652. Higher Ed. Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(10), Pricewaterhousecoopers (2013). NPwC’s next gen: A 17. global generational study. Retrieved from Trepte S., & Reinecke L. (2011). The pleasures of http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hr-management- success: Game-related efficacy experiences as a services/pdf/pwc-nextgen-study-2013.pdf mediator between player performance and game Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory enjoyment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Networking, 14(9), 555–557. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Tulving, E., & Kroll, N. (1995). Novelty assessment in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, the brain and long-term-memory Encoding. NY: Springer, 149-172. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(3), 387–390. Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). van Kesteren, M. T. R., Ruiter, D. J., Fernandez, G., & Representations of relationships to teachers, Henson, R. (2012). How schema and novelty parents, and friends as predictors of academic augment memory formation. Trends in motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Neurosciences, 35(4), 211-219. Adolescence, 14(2), 226–249. von Gillern, S. (2016). The gamer response and Salamone, J. D., & Correa, M. (2012). The mysterious decision framework: A tool for understanding video motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. gameplay experiences. Simulation & Gaming, 47(5), Neuron, 76 (3), 470-485. 666-683. Schamroth, S., & Walsh, S. (2014). Gamified von Restorff, H. (1933). Uber die Wirkung von vocabulary: Online resources and enriched Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld. Psychologische language learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Forschung, 18, 299–342. Literacy, 58(1), 49-58. Wang, M. T., Willet, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and assessment of school engagement: Examining performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, dimensionality and measurement invariance by 7(2), 112–137. gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Schomaker, J., van Bronkhorst, M. L.V., & Meeter, M. Psychology, 49(4), 465–480. (2014). Exploring a novel environment improves Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win. motivation and promotes recall of words. Frontiers in Philadelphia: Warton Digital Press. Psychology, 5, 1-6. Wittmann, B. C., Bunzeck, N., Dolan R.J., & Düzel, E. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00918 (2007). Anticipation of novelty recruits reward Siemens, J. C., Smith, S., Fisher, D., Thyroff, A., Killian, system and hippocampus while promoting G. (2015). Level up! The role of progress feedback recollection. Neuroimage, 38, 194–202. type for encouraging intrinsic motivation and positive Yair, G. (2000). Educational battlefields in America: The brand attitudes in public versus private gaming tug-of-war over students’ engagement with contexts. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32, 1-12. instruction.

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 26

Appendix A Screenshots of Twine Game Play

Screenshot of an incorrectly chosen answer

Screenshot of a correctly chosen answer

Screenshot of a mystery clue reward

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 27

Appendix B An Example of One Level of the Game

Post-consumption, some people are unhappy with their purchase. They can either go back and complain, or choose not to complain and just not return or purchase the product again.

Which is NOT a characteristic of a complainer?

 More likely to return to the company after the complaint is fixed Nope! Those who complain are actually more likely to return after their issues have been addressed by the company. Try again.  Is a valuable source of information to the company Not true. Those who complain are GREAT sources of information for the company. They are able to get first-hand accounts of what issues their product/service might have and how they can remedy those issues.  Is more likely to post negative messages on social network sites Exactly! It's actually the non-complainers who tend to post negative messages on social networks. Once squeaky wheels (i.e., the complainers) get greased, those folks are unlikely to spread negative feelings W.O.M. You are rewarded with Mystery Clue #2

Appendix C Mystery Riddle and Accompanying Clues

As a burglar reaches for something on the mantle, he accidentally knocks over a clock. It falls to the floor, breaks, and stops. The next morning, however, police aren't able to determine what time the robbery took place. Why not?

 Mystery Clue #1: The police could see the clock.  Mystery Clue #2: The burglar did not alter the clock in any way after it fell.  Mystery Clue #3: The police didn't expect to be able to read the clock.  Mystery Clue #4: What kind of clock is it?

Appendix D Similarities among All Three Classes That Participated in the Studies

Study 1 Study 2 Gamified Not Gamified Gamified Student Course   Grade Course    Materials

Professor   

Semester  

Syllabus   

Quiz   

Note. A checkmark indicates the variable is the same across rows.

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 28

Appendix E Major Categories That Emerged from Open Coding of How Students Felt About the Game

Major Categories Properties Examples of Participants’ Words Novelty Different from the Nice switch-up class norm Nice break from the usual A neat way to represent what we learned Different from I have not taken anything like this in any of my other courses educational Clever norms Refreshing break from the standard Change of pace Mixes things up a little Definitely a step away from the regular format Different New Fun Enjoyable way to Fantastic tool to incorporate fun learn It was a fun exercise Really enjoyed it Liked it a lot Since it is a game, it makes it more fun I love puzzles and riddles Entertaining way to learn Enhanced Learning Inspired deeper Made me think deeper and read in between the lines thought Incorporates out-of-the-box thinking Prepared me way better Related to course Very intuitive review material Reviewed some of the important topics Enhances course material and stimulates thought process Helpful Good summary Prepared me on what subjects I have to focus on more Adds a new dimension to learning Helped me to retain the information for longer Very relevant to the chapter’s material and the quiz Motivated me to get the correct answer on each of the questions since I really wanted the clues Helped me learn Helped with my understanding of some of the concepts

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 29

Appendix F Sample Responses to the Question “How Do You Feel About this Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Game and its Relation to the Course Material and Quiz?”

 I like it a lot, and it added some fun into very informational based material.  I find it an entertaining way to learn. A refreshing break from the standard material.  It is a great way to apply the concepts that we are learning. I really enjoyed it.  It was interesting! I have not taken anything like this in any of my other courses.  It forces you to study particular parts of the book in a not so terrible way.  I think this game is a fantastic tool to incorporate fun and outside-the-box thinking to learn the course material!  It provided great examples that made it easier to learn the course material.  I am a riddle person and like that aspect of it where you can do this to gain clues about the riddle, at the same time you are subconsciously studying.  It was fun and I liked the explanations for all of the wrong and right answers.  This was really fun! I love puzzles and riddles, it adds a new dimension to learning which I feel helped me to retain the information for longer.  I like how it mixes things up a little.  I thought it helped with my understanding of some of the concepts.  I thought it was a neat way to represent what we learned.  I thought this game prepared me way better than myself trying to read and learn about what is going on.  It prepared me on what subjects I have to focus on more. Since it is a game, it makes it more fun for me to learn and challenge myself.  I felt that the game helped me learn in the sense that I had to recall information from the course.

Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Spring 2019 30